Although the 5th-12th of this month has been a bit of a slow week, we’ve had two rather interesting posts written by Mathews and Aparajita.
Mathews had written on the need to consider non patent models for incentivizing drug discoveries, and discussed the various examples of newly emerging models that appear to present rather interesting opportunities. He first outlines the recently instituted Project Marilyn that launched a campaign to develop a crowd funded patent-free anti cancer drug – 9-deoxysibiromycin or 9DS. He then the discussed Open Source Drug Discovery – a CSIR India- led initiative that envisages globally affordable health care, by collaborating and coordinating efforts towards drug discovery for tuberculosis. However, he notes that this model may run into certain difficulties due to the possibility that pharmaceutical companies may hesitate to undertake the risks associated with clinical trials when there exists no incentive – in the form of intellectual property right – to do so. However he also adds, that a newly developed form of data exclusivity that rewards the drug development an open source licensed molecule, pathway or process may be the answer to this dilemma. Further, he states that the high costs associated with development on the drug means that funding of the project by the government and and other philanthropic donors may not be feasible in the long run. Thus, he stressed on the need to create a global association of developing countries and other interested organisations and NGOs that are ready to pool in resources. He then suggests the targeted use of patent pools as a practicable means to bypass IP blocks and pave the road to more economical and accessible drugs. Lastly, he mentions Utility Models as a feasible non patent model, as discussed here. He concludes by emphasizing the need to take risks, and innovate as well as improvise so as to effectively come up with new models to reward R&D efforts associated with drug discovery.
Next, Aparajita summed up the notice issued by the Supreme Court to the Centre with regard to Subramanian Swamy’s PIL asking the Court to decriminalize defamation in India. Following her rather unexpected rendezvous with defamation notices herself, she draws attention to a previous post where, taking from conclusions drawn in various Supreme Court judgements, she discussed what falls within the ambit of “reasonable restrictions” as to freedom of speech as under Article 19(2) and thereby, the constitutional validity of the offence of defamation as under Section 499/500 of the IPC. She writes that Swamy’s main contention was that the provisions of the two Sections mentioned constricts the freedom of speech beyond reasonable limit, and that the very purpose of Article 19(2) was not meant to put such restrictions. The defendants, arguing that the sections put in place essential safeguards, also stressed that the argument that the sections travel beyond the Constitution was unsustainable as defamation is mentioned as a reasonable restriction to freedom of speech under Article 19(2). She writes that amicus curiae Mr. Andhyarujina suggested that the intention of the Provisional Parliament intention behind inclusion of “reasonable restrictions” as a check on government’s power remains legitimate today as well. His prima facie view, additionally, remained that although incitement to an offence may attract criminal punishment, liability for defamation must be restricted to civil liability. She adds that Mr. K Parasarn, also amicus curiae, suggested that the line “Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law” stands separately from the other provisions of the clause, thus saving Section 499/500, but the petitioners submitted that although this may be so,it is essential that the test of reasonableness is passed. She then went on shed light upon various High Court cases where defamation has been used as a defence in an attempt to sustain freedom of speech violations.
Trending International Developments
- iiNet ISP loses court battle against Dallas Buyers Club ; court orders the handing over of IP names and addresses of violating Australian users.
2. Google granted patent to block TV spoilers
